Student Voice


February 2, 2023


Demonizing climate change skeptics hinders scientific progress

April 26, 2017

In the current political climate, a particular set words is thrown around a lot: anti-science and the climate change denier. The two terms are, at the heart of the matter, insults proclaiming a person is irrational. The primary users of the terms are leftists and those preaching that catastrophic climate change is imminent.  

However, anti-science can be applied another way: the denial of fundamental human biology. A man is born a man, with XY chromosomes. It’s impossible to change biological sex, which transgenderism attempts to claim is feasible. What the left, which claims to champion the LGBT community, is claiming is anti-science. This is here merely to dismiss the claim of the right being solely anti-science, so back to the bigger issue.

With climate change, to call someone anti-science is to claim they are denying fundamental truths. However, the issue with climate is it behaves unexpectedly, and thus the narrative hasn’t always remained the same.

In the '70s, global cooling was a concern. In the 2000s, it was global warming. Today, it's climate change. The changing definition reveals a chink in the armor of the argument. To say the argument is settled is false. Scientists are far from declaring the issue settled, for we still don’t know to what extent each force affects the climate.  

This brings us to the second of the original terms mentioned: climate change denier. To brand someone with this term is quite terrible. Why? Calling someone a climate change denier is to connect them to a Holocaust denier.

And the truth of it is, is there’s no denial that the climate is changing. They would have to deny the existence of ice ages and archaeological evidence from Greenland of Viking occupation. The correct term for a nonbeliever in catastrophic climate change is a climate change skeptic. Yes, the climate is changing, but isn’t it always?  

Greenland, once occupied by the Vikings, used to be a fertile and rich region. The Vikings used wind to propel their small ships over the oceans and in expanse of their warmongering empire. No vast carbon output, no excessive industrialization. Nonetheless, the Little Ice Age struck. Greenland is now an icy wasteland. Unless the ice melts, it will likely stay that way.  

The matter of climate change is complex. Computer models can’t comprehend it. The models make predictions, and the predictions don’t match reality. Considering the myriad of factors that affect our sphere (solar activity, axial tilt, cloud cover and air and water currents, to name a few), it shouldn't be surprising. More exist or haven’t been identified.  

What is not complex is this: If we continue to demonize one side, we won’t make any progress toward coming to a conclusion. The conclusion will be the final reveal of the truth, and the deniers can remain in their shells. The rest of us must face the fact we might be wrong. Skeptics and believers alike must be willing to set aside differences to recognize the facts.   


Jonathan Alexander on 04 May 2017: This article is completely misinformed. The argument states no facts and is based loosely on arbitrary dates in the past where the climate was warmer. Greenland was never a "fertile rich region" as stated, the Greenland ice cap has ice records that go back 100,000 years and it is thought that ice has occupied the majority of the land mass for 18 million. Yes the issue is complicated and scientists are working hard to understand the systems that govern it. Here are the facts that have been proven: 1. The greenhouse effect is real. 2. Humans have released greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. 3. There are many sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses including power generation, cars, concrete, agriculture, and land use change. 4. The oceans have absorbed 2/3 of all anthropogenic CO2. 5. This CO2 has mixed with ocean water to make carbonic acid and has acidified the ocean. 6. Gender is different than sex.